1960 (3) TMI 62 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Prima facie case under Section 406, IPC.
2. Non-payment of contributions and non-submission of returns as continuing offences under Paragraph 76(a) and (c) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
3. Validity of the notification SRO/2035 of 20-10-1953 under Article 20 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Prima Facie Case under Section 406, IPC:
The accused, proprietors of a textile mill, were charged under Section 406, IPC, for criminal breach of trust concerning amounts deducted from employees' wages as contributions to the Employees' Provident Fund but retained by the employers. The court noted that if the employer deducts contributions from employees' wages, claiming it is for the provident fund but fails to credit it, this constitutes a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust. The sums deducted are held in trust by the employer, and failure to deposit them into the fund is a breach of that trust. This charge stands independently of the Provident Fund Scheme's operation.

2. Non-payment of Contributions and Non-submission of Returns as Continuing Offences:
The accused were also charged under Paragraph 76(a) and (c) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, for failing to pay contributions and submit monthly consolidated statements. The court examined whether these omissions were continuing offences. It was determined that the duty to pay contributions and submit returns continues daily until fulfilled. This interpretation aligns with previous judgments regarding continuing duties under similar regulations. Hence, the non-payment and non-submission are continuing offences, punishable even after the Scheme's penal provisions came into force in October 1953.

3. Validity of Notification SRO/2035 of 20-10-1953 under Article 20 of the Constitution:
The notification in question retrospectively brought the Scheme into force from September 1952. The court clarified that while non-penal laws can operate retrospectively, penal provisions cannot due to Article 20(1) of the Constitution. However, since the offences in question are continuing in nature, they became punishable once the penal provisions were enacted. The court emphasized that Article 20(1) does not affect laws punishing continuing offences, and thus, the notification does not invalidate the penal provisions of the Scheme.

Conclusion:
The High Court directed the Magistrate to hold further inquiry into the complaints, recognizing a prima facie case under Section 406, IPC, and Paragraph 76(a) and (c) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, read with Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The court affirmed that the non-payment of contributions and non-submission of returns are continuing offences and that the notification bringing the Scheme into retrospective effect does not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution.